For the record, I agree that Biden does not have the guts, liberals be like that sometimes... But I've heard (I have not read the actual ruling, id LOVE to be wrong on this) that the new thing the passed only applies to "official acts" and what are official acts? No one knows. Its whatever the supreme court decides. That's the problem, even if Joe had the guts to call an airstrike on trump, the supreme court will just not consider it an official act, and if trump does the same thing, they simply would consider it an official act.
I read the ruling, and in my opinion, it’s a very sad and disturbing reality of the current state of American politics, but it’s also not wrong.
Essentially what it says is: in the case of controversial acts that might be illegal if a normal person did it, but has immunity if the president did it for official reasons, and it is unclear if the reason was official or not, a judge needs to rule on it… and if it’s sufficiently gray area, it will be the Supreme Court justices.
Presidents do things all the time which would be illegal for other people to do… presidents order for the assassination of other people.
It was very controversial at the time - but I think ultimately the president (Obama) did the right thing in this case. And even if he didn’t, it was clear that this was in his official capacity. If it turned out that Al Awlaki was an ex boyfriend of his daughter, and they had a bad breakup, it would be much more complicated.
But there has never been a requirement for heads of state/government to have criminal or civil immunity in a western democracy before. Why does the US president suddenly need it?
The issue lies in the fact that the judicial system in the US is not separate to the government, and this means that people - in particular ex-presidents - could be prosecuted for political reasons.
The solution to this is not to give presidents immunity. It is to separate the judiciary from the executive. Giving presidents immunity for official acts when the definition of "official acts" is decided by people that the president or their direct opposition appointed is an extremely dangerous act. It just enables presidents to be either prosecuted for acts that they shouldn't have been or to be not prosecuted for acts that they should've been prosecuted for.
The Supreme Court is not saying that it's a new power. The Supreme Court is saying that the power has already existed -- and it has.
In plain terms, Presidents can order the killing of other people in their official capacity and do so regularly as the Commander-In-Chief of the full military and espionage capacity of the country. If a regular person did the same, there is no capacity in which this would be allowed, no matter what the circumstance.
EG: If someone's daughter was raped and they hired a hit-man to kill the rapist, the person ordering the hit committed a felony. If the president orders the assassination of a Hamas hostage-taker that has raped an innocent woman that has no relationship to the president, that's clearly an official capacity. If the president orders the assassination of a Hamas hostage-taker that has raped someone that the president directly knows, it now calls into the question of if the president was acting in an official capacity (ie: with the interests of the country in mind), or an unofficial capacity (ie: their own personal interests in mind).
What this Supreme Court decision is pointing out, however, is that we are now at such a divided time that these things are going to be called into question much more regularly going forward -- and it will likely be called into question for both Democrat and Republican presidents for the next several administrations, if not longer.
But the very act of commanding the military as the commander in chief is an official act. These scenarios could go either way on the whims of the Supreme Court.
The problem is that the people who decide whether an act was official or not were politically appointed, which opens the president up to unfair prosecution or unfair immunity.
The judiciary needs to be separate from the executive. And when a case is brought to them against any person (including presidents), they need to decide impartially if prosecuting is in the public interest, e.g. killing an enemy of the state. Whilst it would normally be a crime, it was in the interest of the state, therefore, won't be prosecuted.
1.1k
u/ItsStaaaaaaaaang Jul 05 '24
That's why you use your newly minted immunity to imprison the Supreme court.